Talk:Company of the Ring

History

This article has been completely rewritten. It had been a redirect since 2009; since then, several scholars have written substantially about its subject. The history of the uncited text that existed before then is at Fellowship of the Ring; see there if there is any need for attribution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Company of the Ring/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 17:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• I'm sorry this review has taken so long. I was somewhat delayed by a bunch of my own nominations getting reviewed.
  • Yes it does sometimes take up quite a bit of one's time!
• I have tweaked the references somewhat for my own benefit. Please check that I didn't mess anything up.
  • OK.

Lead

• That the subject of this article is fictional should probably be mentioned in the very first sentence (it's currently mentioned in the second).
  • Added.

Context

• the high fantasy works The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings – should probably note their connection.
  • Added.
    • I meant that the latter is a sequel (of sorts) to the former. TompaDompa (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Added.

• Set in Middle-earth – should probably note that it's a fictional world.
  • Added.

Narrative

• A map would be pretty helpful here.
  • Added.

• to prevent it from falling into the hands of the dark lord Sauron – might mention that Sauron is the Ring's creator.
  • Added.

• still invisible – no previous reference to invisibility has been made.
  • Added.

Analysis

• The Inklings scholar Ariel Little writes that Tolkien saw community as the "ideal model for life". The type of community is specifically [...] – is that "the type of community" in the sense "[...] that Tolkien considered ideal" or "[...] that the Company of the Ring embodies"?
  • Both. Edited.

• This is the reverse of the character of what Tolkien states is the opposing group, the Nine Riders, who are "homogeneous, discordant, and intensely individualistic." – this quote comes up in the context of evil more generally, not the Nine Riders specifically. The Nazgûl are described as homogeneous later, but it's (mainly) the orcs that are discordant.
  • Edited.
    • The image also needs to be tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Tweaked.

• The Christian commentator Ralph C. Wood – I'll admit to not knowing quite what "Christian commentator" means in this context. My intuitive interpretation would be something like a media pundit, which I'm guessing is way off. Is there a better way of glossing Wood?
  • Theologian.
    • Right, that makes a lot more sense. TompaDompa (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• in turn from con ("with") and panis ("bread") – this is verifiable from e.g. a suitable dictionary, though Juričková does not specifically bring it up. Feel free to either add a dictionary source or not.
  • Added.

In adaptations

• A consensus of film critics described the casting as "pitch-perfect". – Rotten Tomatoes should be explicitly named WP:INTEXT; this is not a consensus statement signed by a collection of film critics but rather a summary written by Rotten Tomatoes.
  • Added.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no copyvio, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   It's somewhat difficult to search for sources about the group itself (searching for "Fellowship of the Ring" naturally produces a plethora of false positives), and I was a bit surprised to find that the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia does not appear to have an entry for the group as such, but at any rate I didn't find any major aspects to be missing based on the sources I did manage to find.

It was an unlucky book, being caught in a company takeover, and rushed into print without so much as copy-editing, and without all the illustrations that had been prepared for it. Some of its articles are really helpful; others, less so.

1. B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

2. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

3. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

4. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

All done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

And we're done here. Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.